- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25570 WP No.20121 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.20121 OF 2024 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. JAVARAIAH S/O BORAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS. 2. SRI. KUMARA S/O BORAIAH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS. 3. SRI. GANESHA S/O BORAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS. ALL ARE RESIDING AT NARASIMHASWAMY THITTU WARD NO.29 HUNASURU TOWN MYSURU DISTRICT - 571105. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SHREEDEEP N., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. NAGAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSURU DISTRICT MYSURU-570001. Digitally signed by CHAYA S A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25570 WP No.20121 of 2024 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HUNASURU SUB DIVISION HUNASURU MYSURU DISTRICT-571 105. 3. THE TAHSILDAR HUNASURU TALUK HUNASURU MYSURU DISTRICT-571 105. 4. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF YOUTH SERVICE AND SPORTS SRI. CHAMUNDI VIHAR NAZARBAD MYSURU -570 010. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA ) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASG THE ORDER PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 IN CASE NO.LND(2)PR-591/91-92 DATED 17.09.1993 VIDE ANNEXURE- K; DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO REMOVE THE WORD STADIUM AT COLUMN NO.9 OF THE RTC EXTRACT AND TO ENTER THE NAME OF THE PETITIONERS BY ISSUEING A WRIT OF MANDAMUS. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25570 WP No.20121 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER 1. In this Writ Petition, petitioners are assailing the order dated 17.09.1993(Annexure-K) passed by respondent No.1, inter alia, sought for a direction to respondent to remove 'Stadium' in Column 9 of RTC extract and to enter the name of the petitioners. 2. I have heard Sri. Shreedeep N., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt. B.P. Radha, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 3. It is argued by Sri. Nagaiah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the land in question was belonging to the mother of the petitioners and later it was acquired by the respondent - authority for the purpose of construction of stadium. It is also argued by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that as no stadium has been constructed in the land belonging to the petitioners nor compensation has been paid to the petitioners in furtherance of the order dated - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25570 WP No.20121 of 2024 17.09.1993. It is also argued by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that stadium has been constructed elsewhere and not in the land belonging to the petitioners. Therefore, it is stated that the petitioners have sought for a direction to the respondent to incorporate the name of the petitioners in the RTC extracts as the petitioners are in possession of the land in question. 4. Per contra, Smt. B.P. Radha, learned Additional Government Advocate, sought to justify the impugned order stating that the impugned order is passed in the year 1993 and as there is delay in approaching the Court, the Writ Petition may be dismissed. 5. Having taken note of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, on careful consideration of the order at Annexure-K would indicate that the land in question has been acquired for the purpose of construction of a stadium. However, the perusal of the photographs at Annexure-L would indicate that the stadium has been constructed elsewhere and not in the land belonging to the petitioners. In that view of the matter, I find force in the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25570 WP No.20121 of 2024 submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners to maintain the name of the petitioners in the record of rights by considering the representation at Annexure-F. 6. In that view of the matter, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case respondent No.2 is hereby directed to consider the representation at Annexure-F and pass order in accordance with law, within an outer limit of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE sac List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23